There's little debate that Nokia has changed the way we look at our Windows Phone cameras. From the PureView technology to optical image stabilization (OIS) to making Zeiss a household name, Nokia has designed a healthy, quality assortment of cameras for their Lumia Windows Phones.

While the weather wasn't exactly agreeable all the time, we took the Nokia Lumia 1020, 925 and 920 out to see how these three cameras compared. All three are solid contenders to satisfy your smartphone photographic needs but is the Lumia 1020 the clear winner? The answer may surprise you.

Specifications - How they differ, how they are the same

Each camera has optical image stabilization (OIS) to minimize camera motion, allowing longer exposures and less blur. Backside illuminated sensors (BSI) are present as well, which puts the wires behind the hardware allowing better low-light images. Finally, all three have PureView technology (Nokia's secret sauce so to speak) and each utilizes Zeiss optics.

However, the Lumia 925 and 1020 have six lens-elements versus the five in the Lumia 920. The extra lens element allows the 925 and 1020 to capture slightly sharper daylight images and yes, it matters.

Now for the differences in the lens and sensor sizes...

Lumia 920: 8.7 MP 1/3.2" sensor and a f/2.0 26 mm lens.

Lumia 925: 8.7 MP 1/3" sensor and a f/2.0 26 mm lens.

Lumia 1020: 41 MP 1/1.5" sensor and a f/2.2 26 mm lens.

The Lumia 1020 and 925 have access to Nokia's Pro Cam camera app. The Lumia 920 does too if you are one of the fortunate souls to be able to update your Lumia 920 to the Lumia Amber firmware. Nokia's Pro Cam gives you more control over the camera's settings (shutter speed, focus, ISO, etc.) and it has that cool "zoom later" feature. While we are a fan of Nokia's Pro Cam, the native Windows Phone app performs rather spot on within it's own right.

Nokia Lumia Photo Samples - Lumia 920, 925, 1020 (left to right)

And with my AT&T Lumia 920 not yet updated (come on AT&T release it already!) to be fair, we used the native camera app for the comparison between these three Windows Phones. Each image was shot at the 16:9 ratio with the settings on automatic and handheld (thus the slight differences in framing).

Results - Comparing the Lumia 920, 925 and 1020

Nokia Lumia Photo Samples - Lumia 920, 925 and 1020 (left to right)

In many respects, I saw little or no difference in the performance of these three Lumia cameras in optimum conditions. However, I feel comfortable in making the following assertions after looking at images taken across a wide variety of lighting conditions.

The Nokia Lumia 925 performed better in lower lighting conditions with regards to exposure, but the optical stabilization wasn't as strong as the Lumia 1020's at slower shutter speeds. The Lumia 925 seemed to allow a lot more light to the sensor, but the Lumia 1020's images were a touch sharper. On a side note, I also found that the native Windows Phone camera app captured better low light images than what Nokia's Pro Cam captured. Why that is, is not clear at the moment.

Nokia Lumia Photo Samples - Lumia 920, 925, 1020 (left to right)

While still a solid performer, the Lumia 920's images were a touch softer and had a cooler white balance (slightly blue overcast) at times. The softness can be attributed to having only 5 lens elements versus the 6 found in the Lumia 925 and 1020 mentioned earlier. I also noticed a few cases where the Lumia 920's images were slightly underexposed. The photos taken from the bridge were shot under rainy, over cast skies. The Lumia 1020 and Lumia 925 seemed to handle the lighting conditions a bit better than the Lumia 920.

Nokia Lumia Photo Samples - Lumia 920, 925, and 1020 (left to right)

It is challenging to shoot pictures with any of these cameras while holding an umbrella. Makes me wish Nokia had a waterproof housing (hint, hint).

Nokia Lumia Photo Samples - Lumia 920, 925, and 1020 (top to bottom)

Nokia Pro Cam

While the AT&T Lumia 920 lacks the ability to take advantage of Nokia's Pro Cam at this time, we did take a peak at how the Lumia 1020 and 925 handled one of Pro Cam's main features, zoom later.

Nokia Lumia Photo Sample Uncropped

Nokia Lumia "Zoom Later" - Lumia 925 (left) and Lumia 1020 (right)

Obviously with the higher resolution and larger sensor, the Lumia 1020 has more room to work with as far as re-cropping an image. While you can zoom a good bit with the Lumia 925, the further you zoom the more image quality suffers. The Lumia 925's zoom later sample is zoomed to the max, focusing on the yellow paint remover cans. We zoomed into the same photo using the Lumia 1020, trying to match the crop as closely as possible. To further match the images, the Lumia 925's image was resized up to that of the Lumia 1020. When zoomed to the max, the original Lumia 925 image was 231x174 pixels while the 1020's image was 465x348 pixels.

Nokia Lumia 925 Pro Cam Sample Image

Nokia Lumia 925 "Zoom Later" Sample

While the Lumia 1020's larger image file has more pixels to manipulate, the zoom later isn't a bust with the Lumia 925. The above image, zoomed far less than the max on the Lumia 925, allows you to zoom in rather nicely on the lettering on the vise. While you may not have as much room to zoom on the Lumia 925, this Pro Cam feature can come in handy when you need to crop an image to get things just right, whether it's cropping a landscape image just right or keying in on details of an item in the picture. It will be interesting to see how well it performs once the AT&T Lumia 920's are able to use this app.

If forced to choose just one...

If I was forced to choose just one Lumia Windows Phone solely for it's camera what would I choose?

The Lumia 920 was a ground breaker. The optical stabilization and low light performance brought smiles to many. While it is a fantastic camera, images were a smidgen soft and at times under saturated or had a cooler white balance. All easily corrected through post-processing software such as Nokia's Creative Studio but still, it left room for improvement on an otherwise very nice Windows Phone camera.

Nokia Lumia Photo Samples - Lumia 920, 925, and 1020 (left to right)

While the Lumia 920 was a ground breaker, the Lumia 1020 is a game changer. It built upon the foundation the Lumia 920 created, took a few pages from the 808 PureView camera, and throws in a few new ingredients for good measure. Some may not like the camera hump but it's hard to dispute the quality of the images the Lumia 1020 spits out.

The Lumia 925 feels and performs like a finely tuned or refined Lumia 920 camera. Taking all the good from the Lumia 920 and improving on its short comings, the Lumia 925 captures sharper images with a touch more color saturation. Low light performance has improved and it may be the best option if you find yourself constantly in dimly lit rooms in need of taking a photo. You still have a slight camera hump but it's no where as obvious as what you have with the Lumia 1020.

Of the three, I see the Lumia 1020 as the more capable camera across the board, which is probably not a shocker. The Lumia 925 has a lot going for it, but it's hard to ignore the larger camera sensor and higher resolution found in the 1020. I also think the Lumia 1020's optical stabilization is better tuned.

But what about for the average consumer? The Lumia 925 is easily the best all around Lumia device in terms of pricing, features and even there camera. It excels in nearly every area and it holds its own against the iPhone 5S (more on that tomorrow). While the Lumia 1020 will attract the prosumer market, the Lumia 925 is better suited for the more casual user--it's lighter, cheaper and thinner than the Lumia 1020. It's really an impressive Windows Phone and the best value (so long as you are okay with 16GB of storage).

Are you going to feel short changed with the Lumia 920? Not at all. But I do think the Lumia 925 (and the Lumia 928 for that matter) is a more refined camera than the 920. Those moving from the Lumia 920 to the 925 will be pleased with the fine tuning Nokia has made with the camera.

When all is said and done, the great thing about these three cameras is that there's really not a bad egg in the bunch.

My L920 broke...got my L1020 on Friday and I'm loving the camera and the pro cam app - not as sluggish as some have made it out to be imo. Even works great on my brother's L920! But I agree, low light performance is better with the native camera app!

I am really content with the photos my L920 takes.http://flic.kr/s/aHsjFNF59x
Yes, I'd love to have the L1020 (esp for the zoom capabilities) but I never feel like I am missing out on having a great cameraphone.
Edit: I just wish ATT gave us GDR2 so I could play with the bracketing feature in Nokia Pro Cam app and use the Nokia Smart Cam app to get some cool-looking photos.

If you were able to get your hands on the 1020 and see what amazing pictures it can take you would not be so content with the 920. I'm amazed by every picture my 1020 takes and can honestly say that the 1020 is far superior to the 920 all day long. The amount of bad photos I took and then subsequently deleted on my 920 isn't even funny. My 1020 on the other hand is virtually incapable of taking bad pictures and will only do so in the hands of a Muppet.

But again tiny pictures, how about some full res shots. Something that could print an 8x10 and not just max out at 4x6. Comparing all these cameras displaying pictures using small pixel sizes is like comparing a RaceCar with a Sedan at 50 miles an hour.

925 "cheaper" than 1020? - my wife and I celebrated iPhone 5S launch day by buying her a Lumia 1020. She looked at the two models AT&T had on offer - they actually put a 1020 on the stand where they advertised the 920, but wouldn't give it to her for $0.01. Anyhow, while she doesn't like to shell out too much for a phone, $99 for the 925 compared to $149 (Amazon) for the 1020 was close enough she went for the 1020. Of course, that's still technically cheaper, but 2/3 the (up-front) cost is little enough cheaper to just go ahead and get the 1020, IMO.
AT&T really ought to give their folks some more flexibility on taking care of the customer. I'd have bought the 1020 in-store for $199 if they had been willing to wave activation in return. Not that the sales clerk added anything to my wife's ability to choose between the two beyond stammering a thank-you for explaining to her that the 920 on her stand was not a 920.

They been very clear, Windows Phone Central does not care about the 928 or even counts it as a good Windows Phone 8 device. It's been released and never a review or anything else. But, every other even low end Windows phone that goes to a GSM carrier normally gets a review.

I personally think it's a joke, after a good % of users on this site are from the US and a higher % in the US are on Verizon than other carries in the US...

The 928 has the same Sensor as the 925, and with the Amber update it also has the same software features of the 925 that were touted. (3200 ISO, etc.)

The 925 is purported to have an advantage with the six-element lens; however, in testing pixel for pixel the two devices are producing the same images. Some reviews in controlled settings wonder if the six-element makes any difference or if the 928 also has a six-element lens or an equivalent compensation, as the 928 and the 925 return the same results.

(The 928 doesn't have the 'bump' because it is a thicker phone.)

The 928 has the advantage of the Xenon flash, (actually a dual LED/Xenon Flash), which can literally stop motion being fast and super bright.

So even in other reviews, anytime you see the 925, most of the time you can just pretend they talking about the 928 when it has to do with the Camera or the Display. Except Flash shots, then you need to read what they say about the 1020 as it is the only other one with the Xenon flash.

(Also keep in mind, earlier reviews of the 925 vs 928 differences were only due to the software versions. The 925 shipped with GDR2 and the Amber update, so all the 'differences' with Display or Camera the 928 now has.)

Why is the 928 always left out of these comparison articles? I now you made passing reference to it at the end, but some of us would actually like to see how it fares. Especially considering that it has a xenon flash.

Not to be a hardass, Daniel, but if your job entails comparing devices you can't really use "I haven't bought one" as an excuse... it's kind of a disservice which has a very easy fix.
Again, totally respect you guys and the site, but I'd like to see closer/more comprehensive comparisons and in the big picture it wouldn't be that hard for y'all to provide them. It would also only boost your reputability in the community by offering more thorough comparisons.

The 925's low light-functionality is impressive. It works so well that there are times when I wish I could tone it down. At our last camping trip our evening campfire burned down to a bed of coals with some interesting patterns that looked stunning in the dark. Unable to turn off low-light, the glowing patterns became a bed of bright gray ash with a few glowing red clumps.

I have both the 920 and the 1020. One thing I've noticed is that the 920 is able to get a lot closer (and still be able to focus) for macro (close up) shots. Of course this can be compensated with the zoom function of the 1020, but still the difference is there. I'm glad to have both!

Great comparisson of the cameras - just what we needed I think. Its okay saying the 1020 has a 41MP camera but we had nothing to show what that means in "real money" when compared to the 920 and 925.
Im have been upset that I have a 920 which 9 months ago cost exactly the same as a 1020 will cost when it comes out in the UK on a pay monthly package. Would I have waited if I had known? Probably not for 9 months - thats a fair while to wait, and seeing the small difference in the quality of the photographs I'm a bit more satisfied I made the right choice.

Of course, I'd still jump at the chance to swap my 920 for a 1020, even if I had to pay a bit more.

Nice comparison! The sales people at the AT&T store were trying to argue with me that the 1020's camera was all hype. Mostly they just wanted to complain about the Nokias for some reason.
Now we just need to get the 1520.

That's awful. It's just about people with closed minds, they can't understand choice. I got the same once but with guitars, when I was buying a Fender Jazzmaster instead of a Stratocaster...Its also a gross underestimation of the buyer. Figures, it's hard for them to deal with people who think on their own, in marketing terms.

The sales people get a small bonus depending on the phone they sell. They are going to pump whatever phone will give them a few extra $$$ in their wallet. Lets just say AT&T employees are always less than enthusiastic and a lot less helpfull when it comes to Windows Phones.

To be honest, having tried a L925 against my L920 with GDR2, I noticed no differences in the results, despite the extra lens.
So at L920's current price and other hardware advantages (built in Qi and 32Gb), I think anyone would be better served with the L920. Apart from people with weak hands who actually needs the lighter version.

Guys you are not going to see much differences at regular screen resolutions even at full HD 1080P that is only 2 mega pixels so if you see differnces at that down-sample the differences at full resolution will be huge. If you REALY want to compare image quality you need to print them one a high-quality image printer at least 8x10 or larger or review them on a very high resolution color-calibrated IPS monitor

Though the 920 and 925 do pretty well here, capturing the details where the 1020 really shines, which would have been evident if 100% crops were made. The 1020 is really in a very different class at the moment. Not even the new Z1,5s really comes close to what it does overall. It's great to see the 925 doing so well, the 1520 should (if it does have a bigger sensor) be the next best after the 1020 in terms of imaging. PureView is absolutely magical.

To make full use of the 1020's camera the test shots should have been taken using the pro cam app. The 920 has improved significantly since Amber and when using pro cam so this comparison should be redone when AT&T pull their finger out and get the 920 updated

Carl Zeiss was a German maker of optical instruments commonly known for the company he founded, Carl Zeiss Jena. Zeiss made contributions to lens manufacturing that have aided the modern production of lenses. Raised in Weimar, Germany, he became a notable lens-maker in the 1840s when he created high-quality lenses that were "wide open", or in other words, had a very large aperture range that allowed for very bright images. He did this in the city of Jena at a self-opened workshop, where he started his lens-making career.
on bing/Wikipedia

My 920 has similiar marks on the back side, in the same spots. Not sure what causes that but its weird that they are pretty much in same area.
I am pleased with my 920 and sticking with it until next year most likely, but I think the black att 925 looks the best out of the bunch. The 1020 is the choice for the camera.

The price of 920 has dropped significantly in Croatia. From 5.500 kn in full retail (cca $970) to 2.400 kn ($425). My bf is getting one soon, and I will be upgrading from my 620 soon as well. I know 925 is better but it's not worth the price difference, and 1020 is a category for itself so... I'd like to have the 1020, don't get me wrong, but for that price of 920 I'll be MORE than happy with a year-old model. :D

And yeah, you guys should repeat the smackdown once you get Amber. It did wonders to my 620's camera, photos are much sharper and colour reproduction is better... I can only imagine what it must do for 920's camera.

WPCentral is the best. I have been looking to get such a comparison for the last two days and here you go. Today ATT allowed me to early upgrade from my 920 and now I have a decision to make. If I stick with WP, it will be because of Nokia and the great WPCentral team. Its hard to ignore such a dedicated group of people

one thing i dont like about the lumia 920 using the pro cam is that,after i take a shot it took great and crisp picture then maybe less than a second that quality is gone. what im trying to say is that the picture quality after you took the shot is not the same before you took the shot.

It's normal. The "crisp" image is due to lack of proper scaling filter for fast rendering. You can get similar look from saved images by downsizing them without a low pass filter, but you won't like it in most situation because of unnatural facial details, zagged edges, and etc.

The extra lens on the 925 should have no impact whatsoever at all on white balance. The article doesn't indicate whether white balance was set to auto or not. If it is set to auto, it's not really a fair assessment because I've found my 920 to be overly touchy in trying to nail down white balance. It's why I never keep it in auto. So maybe the new camera software in the 925 does a better job of getting white balance right in that mode.

The point is that the extra lens is to enhance sharpness, not affect color. In these photos, however, I'm not seeing any evidence that the extra lens does anything at all. If I had to guess, I'd say the lens was added to satisfy some technical need that has marginal practical benefit. Marketing and hype has given it an exaggerated level of importance.

If you've got a 920 you be crazy to go out and get a 925 for the camera. This phone doesn't even have the xenon flash from the 928.

Not sure if it has been mentioned but the Amber update also brings software tweaks to the camera algorithm in regards to sharpness and white balance which might explain the hue and softness. The 6th lens should improve sharpness as well in the 925, but it would be a better comparison once they're all on Amber.

I'm using Lumia 920 on GDR2 +Amber. The blue overcast is fixed in the Nokia Pro Cam app (it's still there in the native camera app). The picture quality has significantly improved now, with better color, and sharpness. The camera can now focus properly and it takes much better images. I have the Nokia Pro Cam set to the default camera key and I use that only to take awesome photos. :-)

Nice comparison but you should make it again with all 3 phones running latest software, Nokia Pro cam.
If I may suggest, comparison shot of people! Both party time and daylight ! I mean yeah for flowers and bridges but c'mon we are taking a pictures of friends and families and posting those (most of the time).

It did not, thanks though... Returned the 1020 and $660 coming back to me to wait on the next big thing...there was not enough of a difference in the pictures to me to justify carrying the 1020. Just wish the 925 had 32GB of internal storage. I really like the pure view cameras, but I can wait.

There is no way the 925 can win this contest when you consider features with only 16gb.

The Pro Shot app on the 920 gives better indoor/low light pictures than the Pro Cam app. I find Pro Cam gives better outdoor pictures though. With double the memory and Pro Shot the 920 is the better phone than the 925.

I actually saw a review just like this one (except the 1020 wasn't released yet) with the 920 AFTER the Amber update. And truth be told, Nokia really changed something in the processing algorithms in that update, resulting in a sharper and crispier images from the 920. I was completely amazed. The 925 still outdid the 920 in low-light conditions, though.

It's of course all image processing, since the slightly bigger sensor of the 925 should still out power the 920. I can't say there really is a need for me to get the 1020, since there is only an occasional shot that I wouldn't get with the 920 that I WOULD get with the 1020. Zoom is nice, but an extra 400 bucks (sell my 920 for $200 on eBay after fees are taken out), I can't see the justification. I fully expect the new Phablet Lumia 1520 to have a camera which is almost equivalent to the 1020, but with a better screen, bigger battery, and more screen realestate. I'll pick up a 1020 once I can get one on the cheap.

Well this is hard to say. I have N8 too and at first I was really disappointed with L920, but now after Amber pictures are really good. Not as good as on N8 unfortinately. I miss xenon flash, which you can find on 1020. I think you must ask yourself what kind of photos do you take because I read that L1020 is slow in shot-to-shot. So if you take pictures of landscapes and price is not a problem then 1020, if you consider a price and take a pictures of people then I should consider 920. I know 1020 takes better pictures, but nobody want to wait 4 (four) seconds with smile on the face until 41Mpix is processed. If you have both two in a store near by, then go there and test for yourself and check what feels good for you. I am really happy with my L920 and I think that I will not upgrade to 1020.
Hope this helps :)

Great images from the Lumia line, but one thing that's never really touched upon is the time delay from shot to shot.
I think most people with kids know that they need the quickest camera to capture spontaneous moments. I hope the 1520 or models thereafer would be a bit quicker with the focus, shutter and processing speeds. The iphone somehow seems to be the fastest out of all the platfroms as Androids are pretty slow too. I wonder how they achieve this?

I often heard and read that the GDR2 Update increases the camera performace of the L920, too. So, wouldn't this fantastic comparison be more fair using an updated L920 device? I know you didn't receive the update, yet (me neither) but don't you agree? BR.

At the end of the day, the 920 and 925 can still get exceptional pictures on a phone. In the past few weeks, I've gotten very good pictures of Niagara Falls and 8 Spruce Street in NYC. Slight graining, but that's about it. When you have good enough lighting to make for a good picture anyways, it produces excellent quality photographs. While the 1020 clearly has better pictures, is that worth another $150, the loss of wireless charging, and a camera hump? To me, no. My day to day use is as a phone, with some pictures. At the end of the day, the 1020 still isn't an SLR, so why would I sacrifice all the benefits of the 920 just because the 1020 makes another small (really, just the digital zoom, the sensor quality is of relatively minor consequence) step in that direction?

Should expect the same results in video mode of the Lumia 920-925-1020? Or it's different?
If different, could be a review for video mode and samples? Please :)
I'm interested how they fare in video shooting. Because i want to get the Lumia 920 or the 925, since i make a lot of videos i'm very interested how they perform.

It would be great if the shootout could be redone when your 920 gets Amber/GDR2 since I've read that MS made adjustments to the image processing engine.
This could affect positively the 920 in the sharpness and color saturation, the issues found on 920 vs 925.

Am I right in thinking that your Lumia 920 photos were taken prior to installing Amber? (You mentioned in the article that your AT&T phone didn't have the ProCam app?).
If that is the case, then I really don't think you can consider the Lumia 920 within the context of this evaluation. The Amber update transformed the pictures that I take....and there are lots of reports indicating that the Amber powered 920 actually now takes better photos than the 925...
Still, it's good to see that all three cameras perform exceptionally well. The 920 is now availabe sim free in the UK for just £200 - so to my mind, that makes it the best value.

1020 Prosumer? huh well anyway...
Wtih these tiny images the true differences are not really apparent: but when you start to display them in a larger format the differences will immediately becomme apparent. There is simply no real comparison between the 900's and the 1020 given the sensor size EVEN AT THE SAME PIXEL RESOLUTION; a larger sensor is ALWAYS BETTER
Further; you left out one of the most critical and important differences; print quality. No way could any of the 900's produce the quality of a print (8x10 or even 13x16) that the 1020 could. It would be a massive difference
In short if you take pictures with your camera that are intended to be more than just a snapshot or a low-res post to twitter or facebook then getting the 1020 is a no-brainer.
PS.... The Ziess lenes on all these cameras put them ahaead of any camera not using Ziess....
.

Follow up.... I read through all the posts and realize one thing; No one has discussed at what resolution they are reviewing/comparing images at.&nbsp; The closest real comparison is the zoom comparison that really shows the true loss of detail that any of the 900's would have against the 1020.

So let's get real:

First off; let's dis-spell the myth: the 8.7MP camera is really a 7.1MP camera at 16:9 and a 7.9MP camera at 4:3. The 41MP 1020 is a 33.6MP camera at 16:9 and a 38.2MP camera at 4:3. Neither camera actually produces an image at the full width and height of the sensor.

The 928 has a 1/3 inch sensor while the 1020 has a 2/3 inch sensor fully twice the size and THAT is a game changer because in all things digital photography sensor size is king.

Now as far as image quality the only differences that anyone can see on a digital display should be minimal as this has shown; because unless you are viewing them on a color-calibrated IPS monitor it would be difficult to tell which images are color-accurate, and unless you are viewing them on a monitor equal to the native image size they are all down-sampled which by its very nature will create a sharper image. Currently the max digital display has a 3840x2160 (8.3MP) which will allow you to view the 928 max 7.9MP image at full resolution.

Digital images are typically printed at no less than 300dpi and can exceed 1000dpi. At the minimum print quality iof 300DPI the 7.9MP 4:3 image will produce an 8.16x10.88 image that can be cropped to 8x10 while the 7.1MP image will produce a 6.7 x11.8 print which can be printed on a 8.5 x 11 sheet and cut down (always shoot at 4:3 if you plan on printing)

Now let&rsquo;s talk about the 1020; at 300dpi the 38.2MP can produce a 23.78 x 17.8 image which is larger than the typical 17x22 paper (any larger moves into the commercial space). This means that you could print an 8x10 at a 713x670dpi.

As far as while balance, color accuracy, saturation so long as the information exists all of this can be corrected in post-processing.&nbsp; So in reality if all you are doing is viewing your images at full HD 1920x1080 (2MP) any of these cameras will be fine. (but to compare the 900&rsquo;s with the 1020 is really apples and oranges)

I love my Nokia Lumia 920, but I can't help drooling on to the Lumia 1020, and to make things worst, the 1520 phablet has just been announced. I also love to have "big" screen phone with a great camera and I think the Lumia 1520 is just like that. Sigh*